Living in a
different time, and having different colored skins, Dana and Kevin had to
embody new roles in 1819: they could no longer be seen as husband and wife, but
as a slaveholder and his slave. Dana described them as “poor actors” who “never
really got into [their] roles” and “never forgot that [they] were acting” (Butler 98).
This was the means by which they could cope with their different life, but for
Dana, her act was challenged when she witnessed the slave children turning the
sale of themselves into a game. It was at this moment that “it suddenly became
very important that [Kevin] understand” their act, because their attempt at resistance
– being pretenders in that foreign time – was failing at preventing them from
accepting slavery (98). They could not fight “the ease” that “trained [people]
to accept slavery” by merely having a futuristic, just mindset; it required
active resistance to maintain their loving union as a biracial couple and their
morality as adversaries of racism (101).
Dana explained,
“the children broke through my act,” as she recalled the time she watched the
young slaves pretend to sell, be sold, and buy each other as a game (Butler 98). This
event ‘broke’ Dana’s position as an observer because the game symbolized the
acceptance of slavery by the children and the population at large; however, it
also brought Kevin’s looming complacency to light. The game reflected on the
children’s acceptance of their fate by “preparing them for their future…whether
they understand it or not” (99). Dana’s disconcertment was rooted in the
children’s ignorance towards the injustice of slavery: though they likely did
not ‘understand’ it, they were ‘preparing’ themselves for a life of
enslavement, not stopping to question the brutality of it, but only arguing
over how much money for which one is sold. Similarly, and more dangerously,
Kevin showed signs of complacency towards the game, saying he had “seen them at
it before,” leaving it possible that he may have had a similar reaction as
Dana’s the first time, but regardless, he had become habituated with their
ignorance, thus increasing his own (99). Consequently, he also became more
complacent towards slavery, saying, “It’s surprising to me that there’s so
little to see,” referring to Weylin’s treatment of the slaves, to which Dana
informed him of the whippings (100). Rather than being appalled by such
punishment though, he asked, “How many whippings?” which implied that he had
begun to accept the social norms of the time, with an “ease” that “frighten[ed]”
Dana (100, 101).
However, Kevin
was not the only one growing accustomed to the past society’s beliefs; Dana also
started to conform to her role as a nineteenth-century slave. Just before the
scene with the children, Dana explained her feelings about living in Kevin’s
room: “I felt almost as though I really was doing something shameful, happily
playing whore for my supposed owner” (Butler 97). Though hints of resistance are seen
through phrases such as ‘almost as though’ and ‘supposed owner,’ Dana was
beginning to see herself as a slave; she could even feel like a ‘whore’ and not
Kevin’s wife. She went on to say, “Kevin and I became more a part of the
household, familiar, accepted, accepting… How easily we seemed to acclimatize!
…it seemed as though we should have had a harder time adjusting to this
particular segment of history – adjusting to our places in the household of a
slaveholder” (97). This notion of ‘acceptance’ is what disturbed Dana the most
about the game, about Kevin’s reaction, and now about her own attitudes as
well. The word ‘acclimatize’ and the repetition of ‘adjusting’ represent the
ease of their transition: their immersion into the past did not require a
forceful change or transformation, but instead only took gradual tweaking of
their characters. Even in ‘this particular segment of history,’ meaning one in
which their relationship is illegal and nearly impossible, all they needed was
some ‘adjusting’ to become their presentable roles as a slaveholder and slave –
and thus it became quite possible that they could forget their true selves, a
white husband and black wife in love.
Thus, as Dana
says, “It suddenly became very important that [Kevin] understand” their act, because
both of them were beginning to allow the corrupted stage of 1819 to become
reality, as blindly as the children were accepting their fate as slaves (Butler 98).
Though their future reality gave them mindsets as being observers or actors, it
was only a temporary fix: “now and then, like with the kids’ game, [Dana] can’t
maintain the distance,” and she knew she needed to act, not as an actor anymore,
but as a member of that society (101). She and Kevin needed to take action for
freedom, like the abolitionists of the past and the future, to change “how
easily people could be trained to accept slavery” (101).
By the end of your piece, I'm not completely able to find the "So what?" factor (though I'm willing to admit that this might be my own lack of reading comprehension talking).
ReplyDeleteI understand that the conflict is this problematic desensitization to slavery, but... I don't know, what's the significance of this whole dynamic? I think it's important to keep in mind what we talked about in class yesterday, does everyone involved actually not understand, even though Dana attributes ignorance to Kevin and the children?
This is a great close reading and examination of acceptance, acclimation, and complacency with slavery. I think it also contributes well to the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the scene of the children playing their auction “game” and how it affected both Dana and Kevin. You provided multiple examples from Kindred which support your argument well and you do a good job of expounding upon them. I also think that your title is engaging and does a great job of preparing the reader to question how complacent Kevin and Dana would become in 1819 Maryland.
ReplyDeleteLaura,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your close reading! You have a very clear writing style that takes the reader through your argument step by step. Each element was explained clearly and thoroughly. If I was to offer a suggestion for improvement, you might think about the innocence aspect of having the child scene in the novel at all and why this particular seen with children (typically innocent) is such a turning point. Just a thought. Not sure you really want to go there in this close read.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your closed reading. I think it was really great that you brought Dana's desensitization into the discussion as well because we didn't discuss it in class yesterday. I followed your argument all the way through your piece, good job!
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a fantastic start and a strong piece as is. Your writing is clear and concise, and your thesis is evident throughout. I do think you could push it further though. Perhaps their easy adaptation can be looked at in a positive light instead of solely a negative one: it certainly made it easier to survive in a situation where it was necessary. Sure, they needed to be a little more resistant and "take action" for freedom, but were they in a position to do that? I think it might be interesting to examine the flip side to your argument. Truly though, I think this is a very solid close reading.
I think you do a great job setting up this piece and providing detailed analysis of scenes. The only thing that caught my attention was that you have this great build up of how this 'acceptance' is created and how it alarms Dana, but there was never a paragraph to explain why this is important both within and outside the novel. Does it comment on society only then or also today? I think you have a great piece that could use a stronger finish.
ReplyDeleteYou have a great topic here and you use the text well to support your argument. I also feel that your thesis is followed throughout the entire essay, which is great. I think that you may need to focus on the "so what" factor to strengthen your argument even further. You have done a great job here, just adding that extra component will make it be an extremely well written piece.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good start! But personally I think you should cut out the part about the game and focus on how Dana and Kevin are assimilating to the times. Because Dana's quote about how surprised she was that they fit in was really good and I wanted to see examples of how they were fitting in. And of course, what's the importance? Is it possibly suggesting that after 200 years the modern world hasn't progressed more? What ever the "so what" is just make sure it's throughout your paper.
ReplyDeleteLaura,
ReplyDeleteThe argument of complacency by Dana and Kevin is interesting. I do wonder if the assimilation you talk of is their way of survival. Kevin needs to act a certain way in the 1800s that may portray him as complacent to the modern eye, but it may be the only way he think he and Dana make it back alive to their contemporary time. Also, the second paragraph should introduce the quote.
Good job - your argument is very clear and is supported with ample evidence from the text. Rachel mentioned in her comment the possibility of seeing this sort of acclimatization towards slavery as a survival tactic, and I think that would be a really interesting avenue to go down. Can you compare/contrast the ways in which Kevin and Dana become desensitized to their surroundings? If they're so different, do those differences allow one to survive better than the other?
ReplyDeleteI think your paper does a great job of setting up why it is important for Dana, Kevin, and our society to refuse the desensitization of problematic situations that surround racial attitudes. From your paper I assume that you are arguing this acceptance is so important because we can only make changes by not accepting things as they are. I think this is the significance people are looking for in your paper. I could be wrong here, but maybe that will help you solidify your argument in your revision if you include some of that to explain "why" this is so critical in the story.
ReplyDeleteI like your parallel between Dana and Kevin's acting and the children's playing. I think focusing on this would be a good way to work towards finding a significance in the things you observed and coming up with a "so what" factor. By aligning the two (which can be easily done, Dana describes both herself and Kevin as childlike and childish at many times) you can discover what aspects they share that force them (Dana, Kevin and the children) in the same situation.
ReplyDeleteYou have a few arguments going on here, and I think if you picked one, you could have a really strong piece. I was really interested in the idea of Kevin and Dana become acclimatized to their roles in 1819. I would like you see you unpack this idea a bit more, and go into a little bit of the "so what" of it. Bring in a bit more evidence, and focus primarily on that, and I think you will have a winning piece.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your close reading; it is clear that you put a lot of thought into and have a well formulated argument. Now all that is left to do is delve into the implications. What does it matter if Kevin cares about these kids playing their game? Why is it important that Dana no longer is in an actor just watching slavery happen? etc.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you didn't really dive into why Kevin was so complacent. Rather than giving examples there was just a bit too much plot summary, if you expand on what Kevin's intentions and motivations are in the past you can help better express your point.
ReplyDeleteReally good job on your paper! You can tell you put a lot of effort into each argument you make. You use a good deal of evidence and explain your quotes. A bit more "so what" would make this stronger, but other than that, you wrote a clear, well-thought out paper!
ReplyDeleteGood close reading. I found it easy to follow and found ample support. I do think as many have said before me that presenting a SO WHAT would definitely make for a stronger piece. Elaborating on the implications of willingly dismissing the game and slavery would get you much closer to exposing that SO WHAT factor.
ReplyDeletethis is a very good close reading! i feel like you've encompassed many aspects of the "ease" with thought out analysis, and i don't feel that you've jsut glossed over anything. I agree with some others that examining the characters and their own personal reactions and implications of these reactions could be very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteLaura,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great work! Your piece has a clear focus and was very enjoyable to read. My only suggestion would be to identify more of a central argument for your thesis, maybe something about how their "acting roles" in one society complicates their actual lives in 1819. I also think you have some really great moments happening in your third paragraph that could use more close attention. Overall, good job!
I really enjoyed your paper, I thought you used a lot of examples and really many of the situations surrounding the "ease" but I felt as though there was no real critical analysis of why this all matters to me. Some people have said there needs to be a "so what" moment, and I kind of feel as though maybe if your thesis had a stronger purpose it might achieve that. I understood your thesis and it tied into everything you were saying, but at the same time it took me a minute to identify it because it really wasn't telling me a clear argument I felt as thought it was more of a statement.
ReplyDeleteGreat job, I was able to follow your argument and you made great points. I believe you do have a so what, that people ease into the world of slavery even if they are from a world that does not approve this. If you explain that this is very problematic and go into detail more you can strengthen your argument.
ReplyDeleteAwesome paper! I found it to be cohesive and complicated in the right ways while still walking the reader through the thought process.
ReplyDelete